What do they mean...

 Coming back to the post of yesterday.....  I have been wondering about symbols and words and the things that people live, love, hope and die to create and maintain.  A great example is the current day icon of Steve Jobs.  How will one who has had his hands on the very growth of the technological age be viewed in years to come?  What would change if his legacy, his very name-sake items, become obsolete and trash due to some sort of odd snafu that really has nothing to do with him?  Will his image then be one only to bring about negativity?
  I think on the beginnings of the Republican party.  A party once created in the fight against slavery and seperation, now seems to be one that would consider it again.  Would they?  Of course not.  Their image, though... that is another story.  And, similarly, look at how corporations have divided the populous of the country and seem to be creating a life of their own.  Religions, what should be a safe haven, are repeatedly being subjected to the baser drives of their leadership. 
  Where is this all going to lead us in the future?  What sort of preperation do we consider? 

My post yesterday was not about Nazis.  It was not about the atrocities they committed.  It was about the symbols they took to show themselves one way and created a whole new definition for that symbol.  It was  lead by the previous post about how we judge a book by our expectations....and how those very expectations can so easily change over time.

  What strikes me lately is that we are in a cultural shift where the news of things from around the world effects our daily lives.  Who cheered when learning of M. Quadaffi's death?  Who shrugged?  But we all knew.  How is it that we can know these things?  What forms do our minds put upon the information we learn from around the world?
  What concerns me is not that we have a world news hour, but that we as a creature have a tendency to lump information into mangeable chunks.  Those chunks often have a label on the front, and can be difficult to change.  If we are not careful we allow the symbols of media smart people to manipulate our thinking and very important things can be decimated behind the scenes with our seeming support.

A rose by any other name...

Bear with me, folks....I'm trying to make a point here. 

The word "swastika" comes from the Sanskrit svastika - "su" meaning "good," "asti" meaning "to be," and "ka" as a suffix.
Until the Nazis used this symbol, the swastika was used by many cultures throughout the past 3,000 years to represent life, sun, power, strength, and good luck.
Even in the early twentieth century, the swastika was still a symbol with positive connotations. For instance, the swastika was a common decoration that often adorned cigarette cases, postcards, coins, and buildings. During World War I, the swastika could even be found on the shoulder patches of the American 45th Division and on the Finnish air force until after World War II.
http://history1900s.about.com/cs/swastika/a/swastikahistory.htm

  Ok, shock effect over.  Here is my point:

  Some time back, a DJ from my one time home town lost his job for using what has become known as the "n-word".  His context was in a following comment conversation in which he noted that all groups have some "lower class" who seem to have their own name and culture within that race, even sometimes taking on that designation like armor.  He noted the white folks have the so-called "trailer trash" and/or "red necks", the Mexicans/Latin Americans have..., and the black folks have....    So, in the process of making a point, he found that - perhaps like me - he'd just offended some people without having any intention of doing so.  He lost his job.
  In the recent past, there was a cowboy phrase "you'd better smile when you say that".  And, that particular phrase has been taken to higher and higher circles, finding a position in the way we see each other and the manner in which we deal with other cultures and countries.  Our politically correct culture, our simplicity of politics that have little concern with taking one man's rights so that another can be comfortable, and in the process of it all having the temerity to not only lie to each other but to prefer it to the ugly truth.  The words are precise, polite, but the intent...
  So, now we actually come to my point of the post:  Intent.  There is a great field of psychology and even into other fields centering on Symbology.  What do symbols mean?  What sort of importance do they hold in the culture?  Do some symbols change over time?   And, the answer to that last is Of Course!  Of course the symbols change because the importance to the people seeing that symbol differs by distance and experience.  For instance, the symbol I used above for catching all of our attentions will have an effect on my friend Miles and on Nikki that is likely much greater than upon myself,  and  incredibly different to a person of the prior century.
  So what?  you say.  Well, this:  the video below really brought this to my thoughts last night.  Our looks create a 'judging the book by its cover' phenomenon, but so do our words.  We hear the words - of our politicians, our preachers, our neighbors, and even ourselves - but do we really hear the intent.

  A rose smells just as sweet because it is a rose.  It is what it is.

      Truth.  It isn't because it is a flower.  This to the right is also a flower, and just as the rose, it is what it is....and it stinks like you wouldn't believe.  Pretty, interesting, colorful....and gives a stench of rotten meat.  And, unless it is trying to present itself as a rose, it is just fine being its own creation.      The truth of this is that it is what it is.  That doesn't make it bad, it doesn't make it good.  It just is.  It is my hope in life that I can be so wise as to look at one presenting itself as a rose and hear correctly the buzz of the bumble bee or the bottle fly.

A bit of cuddly love...

Please watch until the end.

Kind of deep, huh.

The sky is black!

Of course, it's night time, and the sun has slipped over the horizon, but the context really isn't all that exciting, is it?   Let's be dramatic and proclaim that the sun is gone and the sky is black.  Oh woe!

  Ok, I'll be kind and let you in on the issues that precipitated my little philosophical rant of the day.  I read a story on Milkboys....(here)... in which a pastor again calls homosexuality a sin.  Now, I know that there are some who come here and do not agree with me about God, and that's ok.  But for the record, I believe.  We all get an opinion, this is mine.

  The following was difficult for me to put into something clear and that makes sense without writing a novel in the process.  So, please forgive some leaps where I don't explain out the reasoning so well.  I'm basically trying to make a point...I would be happy to debate in another forum.

  So, a part of the life of Randy that some of you don't know is that at one point I took theology classes.  It was a time of self exploration for me, and I found a great deal of myself in that time.  But, as I was raised a Christian, if not always acting in that belief, I did have a cultural background that helped me to understand the odd curves associated with putting words down to describe what very few have had the opportunity to meet.  And, in that, I guess it's like trying to describe a symphony to someone who is deaf; the context just isn't there.  I understand that, and have come to forgive those who have tried.
  The vid on Milkboys talks about the best used scripture to denounce homosexuality.  And, like my first statement, it requires just a bit of context.  First, the story of Paul...who had to be struck blind by God to get his attention.  He was a lawyer, a bit zealous (in current speak) to be sure, riding herd on a bunch of men who took up Christian slaying as a hobby.  So, knocking him off his ass and blind is likely the only option God had.  You see, Paul thought he was already doing the work God would have him do, as a devout Jew.  Sound familiar with some of our current pulpit pounders? 
  What these Bible thumpers don't tell you is that Paul felt that the body was such a temple that the use of prostitutes was not acceptable.  And, yes, many were using them then.  There were the normal prostitutes we are familiar with still, and there were some who were what they called temple prostitutes, who were used without regard for the cost to the person.  It was just sex, and the rationale was that the giving of the body in such a way directed the prostitute closer to heaven.  
  So, Paul spoke about the use of sex outside the relationship, the couplehood.  He spoke about adultery, fornication, use of prostitution, etc., all of which take place outside a committed relationship.  Hmmm...you never really hear about this part of the scripture, do you?
  There are a great number of pastors and preachers, haters and professional hypocrites, and even some who are quite sincere...all telling us that homosexuality is bad because Paul said so right here.  What they are missing is that Paul was screaming at the top of his lungs that placing anything above God was the problem.  Preachers and believers of the time were justifying all sorts of things in error, still living their old lives despite their profession of belief, and putting those priorities above their relationship with God. 
  So, for clarification...the use of 1Corinthians6:9-11 to denounce homosexuality is out of context. 

I admit to being a bit in the dark...

Hello friends;
  This whole "Occupy Wall Street" thing is extraordinarily interesting to me.  The protests of the 60's were beyond my time, and the only things really being protested in my generation were the demise of parachute pants and 'member's only' jackets.  What can I say, the 80's were weird.
  So, when we listen to the news broadcasts and we realize that this is the very heart and soul of America, it is even more interesting to see the modern day royalty be offended by the protests.  Even more interesting to see the paid mouthpieces of the establishment spin this into a coalition of punks rather than a sincere effort to end a very unfair practice. 
  I wonder how callous the powers be that they forget such outcries were the first words of this baby nation, and how that ended.  I can't believe an armed revolution is in the works, but it surely would be interesting to see what happens when the power structure continues to refuse to listen and address these folks concerns.
  Maybe it's time for a real third party in this country.  What do you think?